Butler v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. 218
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR 11-207
Opinion Delivered
JAMES BUTLER
APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
May 12, 2011
PRO SE MOTIONS FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
BRIEF [GARLAND COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT, CR 2008-268,
HON. JOHN HOMER WRIGHT,
JUDGE]
APPELLEE
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS
MOOT.
PER CURIAM
In 2009, appellant James Butler was found guilty by a jury of two counts of rape and
sentenced to two consecutive life sentences. We affirmed. Butler v. State, 2010 Ark. 259. This
court’s mandate was issued on June 15, 2010.
On November 23, 2010, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se petition for
postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2010). The
petition was dismissed on the ground that it was not timely filed in accordance with the rule
and thus the trial court was without jurisdiction to consider it on the merits. Appellant lodged
an appeal here and now seeks by pro se motions appointment of counsel and an extension of
time to file the appellant’s brief-in-chief.
Cite as 2011 Ark. 218
We need not address the merits of the motions because it is clear from the record that
appellant could not prevail on appeal if the appeal were permitted to go forward. The appeal
is therefore dismissed, and the motions are moot. An appeal from an order that denied a
petition for postconviction relief will not be permitted to proceed where it is clear that the
appellant could not prevail. Gilcrease v. State, 2011 Ark. 108 (per curiam); Wormley v. State,
2011 Ark. 107 (per curiam); Delamar v. State, 2011 Ark. 87(per curiam); Morgan v. State, 2010
Ark. 504 (per curiam); Goldsmith v. State, 2010 Ark. 158 (per curiam); Watkins v. State, 2010
Ark. 156, ___ S.W.3d ___ (per curiam); Meraz v. State, 2010 Ark. 121 (per curiam); Smith
v. State, 367 Ark. 611, 242 S.W.3d 253 (2006) (per curiam).
If a direct appeal is taken from a conviction and the conviction is affirmed on appeal,
a Rule 37.1 petition must be filed within sixty days of the date the mandate was issued by the
appellate court. Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c). Time limitations imposed in Rule 37.2(c) are
jurisdictional in nature, and if they are not met, a trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider a
Rule 37.1 petition. Sims v. State, 2011 Ark. 135 (per curiam); Trice v. State, 2011 Ark. 74 (per
curiam) (citing Mills v. State, 2010 Ark. 390 (per curiam)); Gardner v. State, 2010 Ark. 344
(per curiam); Harris v. State, 2010 Ark. 314 (per curiam); Crawford v. State, 2010 Ark. 313 (per
curiam).
Appellant filed his petition 161 days after the mandate issued. As such, the trial court
was without jurisdiction to consider it, and dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was proper. Sims,
2011 Ark. 135. Where the circuit court lacks jurisdiction, the appellate court also lacks
2
Cite as 2011 Ark. 218
jurisdiction. Id.; see also Clark v. State, 362 Ark. 545, 210 S.W.3d 59 (2005) (citing Priest v.
Polk, 322 Ark. 673, 912 S.W.2d 902 (1995)). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction, and appellant’s motions are moot.
Appeal dismissed; motions moot.
3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
